The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[MadMax]

Sail

I see a difference between the registration of cars (which are to be used on public roadways) and the registration of guns (which normally are not used in public). I fully agree with the need to have a license to conceal carry, once again the protection of the public is the primary driver in requiring that, but honestly what business is it of the government what guns I own?

OK, let me provide a little background on myself before people incorrectly assume I am a right-wing nutjob, I was born in Germany to an American father and naturalized mother who was a German national. I spent a fair bit of my youth in Europe and more time after I joined the Air Force after high school. I have been stationed in Europe several times and still travel back there once or twice a year. But I have since retired after nearly 25 years in the military but I still work for the DoD as a contractor. So my mindset is heavily influenced not only by where I live (Texas) but also where my history lies (Europe). As you know, when it comes to guns, those two heavily conflict; but at least I am familiar with both sides of the argument.

So, having spent nearly a quarter of a century defending the very Constitution that gives Americans the right to own firearms, I strongly believe the government has no right to interfere with that. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to drive cars, mainly because cars didn't exist when it was written but it still hasn't been added.

Firearm registration has no use unless it is for future confiscation of said weapons. It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001. It also did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons. Also in Australia, where in 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens. And even in the US, in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to shifting definitions of “assault weapons,” many legal firearms were confiscated by the California government. Also in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and “registered” owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. It happened in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.

It also does not prevent crime or help in solving it. Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime.140 Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. It didn't happen in in Canada. Canadian homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented (151/100,000 people in 1998 and 149/100,000 in 2002).

I have the sources for all those stats, I just didn't feel like listing them all; but if you are interested they can all be found at GunFacts.info

The government does not require me to license any other dangerous instrument that I own (ax, hammers, lawn mowers, etc), so why my firearm?

And I am a registered gun owner in Texas, by virtue of having a concealed handgun license; but there is no firearm registration here and many believe that they shouldn't require the state's permission to carry a firearm as that right has already been provided by the Second Amendment. In some ways that is a very compelling argument!

Cheers! M2